Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting 14th February 2018

My questions to Cabinet this month were a bit unusual in a number of ways. Some are relatively straightforward but are a part of a longer term considered inquiry and one was delivered on the day instead of in advance as is my usual practice.

---

In a similarly unusual move some of the questions were either answered or written answers were offered before the meeting. In view of what came later, this was useful.

So: Question 1, on numbers of staff and budgets for Communications as against Democratic Services, I will be receiving a written answer.

Question 2, on capacity and number of students enrolled in the City's two University Technical Colleges, I will be receiving a written answer.

---

Question 3, on progress on my Conduct Complaint against a Councillor, I was updated verbally before the meeting and have since received a written answer. Apparently we are awaiting the arranging of a 'Consideration Sub-Committee' and have been since before Christmas. I wonder what will happen if this is not arranged before the AGM when everyone plays musical chairs in the committees?

---

Question 4, on the recent report by the Communities & Local Government Select Committee Inquiry into Overview & Scrutiny Functions in Local Government, was answered by Cllr Julie Dore (Leader). She commented that she would expect the Council's own Overview and Management Scrutiny Committee to consider the report as part of it's work programme. It would also look at all the recommendations of the report even though I had highlighted only certain parts.

That is fine by me, I had at this stage highlighted areas I know SCC don't do currently in the hope of stimulating a debate on the effectiveness of scrutiny in the city. To that extent I am content … for now.

---

My final question of the meeting was submitted at short notice and therefore I expected little by way of an answer but it was to serve notice that a disagreement may be at hand. In my Question 5 I asked about a decision announced (in private to the Sheffield Star only) that day about Mount Pleasant House being sold to a company to make into a Care Home.

There had been, in the previous week, reasons to believe that the decision may have been based on 'mistaken' or missing information in the reports received by Cabinet Members. I therefore asked that the decision be referred to Scrutiny to ensure “...that a complete understanding of the decision can be achieved and that it is based on a full understanding of the impact of this decision on another gem of Sheffield's heritage before it is lost to the local community forever.”

I also asked for a number of bits of information about the stage of the negotiations with the successful bidder.

The initial response was from Julie Dore, who commented that there is a protocol for contract decisions and it is not possible to comment on confidential or commercially sensitive information. There was no comment about referring the decision to Scrutiny.

Cllr Olivia Blake (Cabinet Member for Finance) then confirmed the offer of a meeting for the following morning as she thought an early meeting with herself, Cllr Ben Curran (Cabinet Member for Planning and Development) and Cllr Mazher Iqbal (Cabinet Member for Business and Investment) would be useful to look at other locations to develop some of the proposals in the Mount Pleasant bid.

I suspect this story will run and run, whilst another unique gem of Sheffield's heritage is under threat.

---

To make small regular donations to my support, please click below.

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting - 22nd July 2015, by Nigel Slack

---

The meeting was chaired today by Cllr Leigh Bramall, deputy leader and Cabinet Member for Business, Skills & Development, as the leader, Cllr Julie Dore was away on Council business. We weren't told what. The usual introductions and housekeeping arrangements were concluded and we moved on to what, for me is generally the most interesting part of the meeting, Public Questions.

---

Today Council received questions on;
Normanton Hill pedestrian crossing and the delay in it's implementation. Cllr Terry Fox Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport replied that council are committed to the crossing and the delay is due to resource issues but it will happen.

The sale of Walkley Library to the Forum Cafe Group and a request for information on the negotiations between the council and the cafe group. Cllr Isobel Bowler Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods replied there had been no formal report to cabinet on the issue and she would treat the request as a Freedom of Information request to find out what letters or e-mails etc were available on the negotiations. This would not however be available in time for the Scrutiny Committee meeting next week. (seems to me a reason for delaying both the scrutiny decision and the formal sale until the information is available to the public and councillors on the committee)

The setting up of the new 'Schools Company' as a formal body to try and ensure equal treatment across all schools in regard to early intervention and other similar services. Cllr Jackie Drayton Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Families commented that as any school became an academy and as new academies were built the council lose some of the budget for these services to the individual schools. The new company is an attempt to ensure the schools continue to have a co-ordinated approach and that with non council schools contributing the budget may be preserved.

Tinsley Green Youth Club and the impact of the new school extension planned for the location. Cllr Jackie Drayton replied that the council supported the youth club as budgets allowed and that other organisations also provided additional hours for the club to be open. She pointed out that the new school will have community space inside for local use also and that she would be happy to assist any 'Friends of the Park' group that came into being but that council could not promote this, it had to come from the community themselves.

---

I was then able to weigh in with a mighty six questions (council will be lacking meetings in August) which went as follows;

First, with concern being expressed about the weakness of council planning policies, particularly in respect of heritage sites, where are council on the new Sheffield Local Plan to bring policies up to date? And will they adopt the same proposals as Islington plan to create for greater transparency in developers 'viability' claims used to reduce commitments to building affordable housing?

Cllr Leigh Bramall responded, commenting that the details of the process were very dry and rather than go into detail he would send the information in writing. He added that there was an ongoing problem with capacity, meaning too few council employees to do the job, and that a final 'Local Plan' might be 2 to 3 years away. He also commented that the city had a good record with heritage assets and were considered a 'best practice' council in this area. On the Islington initiative he commented that he would keep an eye on it and see how it developed.

Question two was about the 'Save Devonshire Street' campaign and whether in light of the campaign achieving it's funding for an appeal against the council's demolition decision they would look again at the advice received by the group from their legal team and reconsider defending the decision.

This was responded to by Cllr Jayne Dunn Cabinet Member for Housing who commented that one judge had already agreed with the Councils decision being correct but that of course they were in dialogue with the campaign group.

Question three asked about the Councils stance on the new 'Devolution Deal' being promoted by George Osbourne and whether they would continue to resist the imposition of a City Region Mayor? I also asked whether they would consult on this with the people of the city?

Cllr Leigh Bramall replied, as Julie Dore was missing, that 'in principle' the council was opposed to imposed elected mayors, it was not being ruled out. It would depend on how good the deal was and whether they felt they could deal with the consequences. He also commented that Nationally government could now, with a majority, force this through. On the matter of public consultation, he made no comment at all.

My question four asked whether the review of council meeting procedures would be go ahead, as requested by the leader of the Sheffield Lib Dems and would the public be involved in the review?

Cllr Bramall reported that the Leader, Julie Dore, would be looking at this he was sure that in any review the public would be involved.

Question five, was in respect of the Grade 2 listed building known as Mount Pleasant. I wanted to know if the council had signed any agreement with a commercial developer in respect of the building and the empty school behind? I also asked for a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Member to discuss evidence of misleading information being used in regard to this building.

The response was from Cllr Jayne Dunn who confirmed that a lease agreement has been signed on the building and also that she would be happy to meet with me to discuss the matter further.

Lastly I asked about the Skyride event in Sheffield. I commented that I found it distasteful it was sponsored by a Rupert Murdoch media company. However this year I also found out the stewards for the event were from G4S, a company that the city council have agreed not to use in council contracts because of their poor human rights record. I asked whether the council would work to ensure this was not the case at the event next year?

Cllr Bramall responded that the event was a nationally sponsored event so they could have no influence over the direct sponsor ie. Sky but that he would bring the matter of the stewarding to the attention of Cllr Ben Curran Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources who would respond to me in writing, he not being at the meeting today.

---

So, a mixed bag of answers, some positive some less so and areas of further work identified. I will now follow up on the devolution matters with the City Region and the Mount Pleasant issues whilst awaiting the further information I have been promised.

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting of 12th November, by Nigel Slack.

---

After the usual preliminaries and approval of minutes and such, we came quite quickly to Public Questions. Slightly unusually the first questioner did not wish to be recorded, so I obliged and I will not detail his question, which was very personal in this blog either. The outcome was that the relevant cabinet member arranged to meet with the individual outside the meeting to pursue his problem.

---

In due course my own questions came around and there were quite a few. My first two could actually be taken together and so I will. The first was about the extension of the Capita contract for the provision of what are known as Treasury services and also back office IT services. My second was on the start of the 'Budget Conversation' and asking for greater transparency about what savings had already been found.

Unfortunately due to poor recording conditions the answers were inaudible so I'm afraid it's back to the old routine of giving my precis of what was said in response. To the first question Cllr Ben Curran (Finance & Resources) made no specific comment about the 'capacity' issue but explained at some length the benefits of the new contracts break points and the savings that have been made during the redesign of the service provision. He also commented on the continued testing of the service against market norms and the council's ability to take advantage of the breaks in the contract if needed.

On the question about the budget conversation he commented that we were only at the start of the process and this was to get the ball rolling. Essentially more information will come out as they feel confident to do so, leading to the final budget in March. Cllr Julie Dore (Leader) also chipped in to say that the officers were tasked with briefing the opposition parties throughoutt he process and that they had more detailed information as it became available. Some however chose not to engage with the process that deeply.

---

My question three commented on the recent CBI conference and their suggestion that National Insurance limits be raised to alleviate the suffering of the low paid. I suggested that it would be easier for the CBI to suggest their members raise the low wages rather than the government subsidies and asked if the Council agreed? Julie Dore responded that she did agree they should be raising wages and believed her Labour Group would also. She then commented on the city supporting the living wage, above the minimum wage.

My question four concerned the webcasting debate and asked whether, in the absence of that facility the council would facilitate using a direct input from the Council's own amplification system to enable me to achieve better quality recordings. This was referred to the legal officer to look into and we will correspond on this issue.

---

Question five was an opportunity to commend the Council over the intention of the city to reflect on the 100th anniversary of the first world war with the Centenary Fields project. This will lead to the Weston Park, adjacent to the city museum to be designated and reserved for public use in perpetuity as a memorial to those whose lives were sacrificed in the bloody conflict. Cllr Isobel Bowler (Culture, Sport & Leisure) thanked me for the commendation and said it was important that this project would not only commemorate the centenary but secure the park for the future use of the people of the city.

My final short notice question, drew attention to the negotiations ongoing between the City region and the Government over so called 'Devolution' and to ask if there would be public consultation over the debate before a decision was made. Julie Dore answered a simple no. She followed this by saying there just wasn't time. The timetable is the governments and they want to make an announcement in the Autumn Statement on 3rd December. She did comment that she hoped that the subsequent negotiations on the detail of the agreement would allow for fuller consultation with the public over that detail.

sheffield city council, budget conversation of 21st october 2014, by nigel slack.

---

A quick headcount at the start of the meeting suggested some 100 or so people there and the mix was fairly even in genders but largely older adults with a scatter of younger ones. Better than the usual collection of older types that inhabit these events (Me included).

A brief opening statement by John Mothersole (Chief Executive) was followed by some context for the presentation by Cllr Ben Curran (Cabinet Member Finance & Resources).

As part of that context he reminded us that the figures discussed were not definitive but subject to change depending on the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, which would indicate the extent of Government plans to further cut public spending, and the announcement in late December of the Local Government Settlement, which would give exact figures for the cuts to each council's grant from government.

The headline figure however forecasts a need to reduce council spending by £60M in 2015/16. It was noted at this stage that this is in the year when the Chancellor, George Osborne, had predicted that austerity would be over. The slides for the presentation are here, and are relatively self explanatory.

SCC budget Presentation Slideshow

---

The rest of my comments will be to highlight points brought out in the presentation not on the slides and to report something of the question and answer session. The first few slides were there to illustrate the level of the cuts to local government budgets, the highest percentage cuts apart from the welfare budget, and that there is significant opinion and evidence that the cuts are not being applied either evenly across all councils or taking into account different levels of need.

The latter slides in Cllr Curran's part of the presentation attempt to illustrate the scale of the cuts already made, 2015/16 will mean £300M lost from council spend since 2010, and the administration's belief that they have been able to maintain their principles and their ambition for the city. This included the plans for 5,000 new homes built over the next three years, thousands of apprenticeships to try and tackle our youth unemployment levels and introducing the living wage to all council employees and 80% of contract company employees. (a subject I chased with both councillors and officers from an early stage)

---

The presentation then moved to John Mothersole for the more detailed facts and figures and the approach the council were considering.

The initial slides in this part illustrated the relatively small amount of the budget that the council has discretion over. From a total £1.4Bn budget most is spent on services fixed by either government, education or housing needs. This leaves only £477M of discretionary spend. So with the 2015/16 cuts the contribution to the city from government grants will have fallen by 50% and that discretionary budget by 30%.

---

All this is being done in the face of a growing population in the city and a weak economic outlook for both the city, the country and the world. The growing population and cost pressures such as inflation also mean there is less service can be delivered with the same amount of money from this budget.

The presentation then went on to discuss the approach the council are looking to take and some of the things already done to achieve savings in the past. It also illustrated some changes that may have a positive impact on the city's budget, such as the New Homes Bonus and Community Infrastructure Charge on developers which could raise over £11M in the medium term, so not all for 2015/16. An even greater impact would be for central government to release more of the business rates they keep, £129M back to the city, without this it remains difficult for the council to reduce business rates (for start up small businesses etc.) without further impact on budgets.

One slide shows the confused position on money available and what is available to cut. Total public spending in Sheffield is £4.5Bn, the council's share of that in direct services is £800M much of the rest is spent via the council but on things like schools, health, transport and emergency services. Ringfenced money. Of the £800M some of that is also ringfenced for fixed budgets and so the money where the council can find cuts is only £477M. The council is therefore aiming to try and get more control over the total £800M and be able to use it more imaginatively and effectively as a result. Whether government will let go of these strings is questionable, whatever colour is in power.

---

The final slides were about how we, the public, can get involved. I think this is important, because without some offer of alternative ideas we will be stuck with whatever the councillors decide. The council think this is important because they can then say we were asked even when we don't like their answers.

The event then moved into a question and answer phase. The questions were mostly about clarification off certain budget areas and things like the difference between capital and revenue. The short answer to that is capital money is for one off projects (usually buildings etc) and revenue is for day to day running expenses. Like buying a car, that is capital. Petrol, insurance, car tax, that's revenue.

One person asked about the way the government fixed the amount of the money they distribute to councils. The answer essentially was that it is now based on population in the main and the need or deprivation of a council area is less and less important in the calculation. This is illustrated by the way city councils are proportionally worse hit by cuts than leafy rural southern counties, some of whom have seen increased levels of government grant.

I asked whether the new Sheffield City Region Combined Authority would be able to look at shared services between authorities to benefit from economies of scale and service efficiencies over bigger areas. The response was that this was possible in the medium to long term but unlikely to be in time to affect 2015/16 budget. I also asked whether there was any sign that the government might move it's position on the business rates retention. The response to this was a flat no.

---

The meeting wrapped at 7.30pm but there will be much more to come on this. I urge everyone to look at the information on the slides, think about the services they receive or contribute to and what could be done differently. We can't get away from this and even a change in government looks unlikely to change the impact for 2015/16, much as we might hope they would come to their senses and realise that austerity and spending cuts are making matters worse not better. Lobby your councillors, lobby your MPs, make your voice heard in the community and in the corridors of power.

Finally, the council's twee video presentation is below. It views a bit like a budget for toy town but I guess it helps get the basics out there and hopefully makes people think.

SCC Budget Video Presentation.

Sheffield City Council Cabinet Meeting of 15th October 2014, by Nigel Slack.

---

Cabinet meeting had a few interesting nuggets this time round, so this is quite a long report. First I'll deal with my 'part' in the meeting. After the usual preamble and agreeing the minutes of the last meeting we headed in to public questions. This is generally more relaxed than in the Full Council meetings and I took the opportunity to advertise the Sheffield for Democracy PCC Hustings event on Tuesday 21st October at the United Reform Church in the city centre.

Here's the audio of my comments.

This was followed by my first question. The question was inspired by the article in the Guardian on Tuesday about the MIPIM (Le marché international des professionnels de l’immobilier) conference that is normally held in Cannes, South of France, but has an inaugural UK version in London this week. The Guardian article suggests the conference is THE place to be if you are a council wanting to sell off the family silver, or housing estates, that type of thing.

To quote from the article.

"For the past 25 years, this conference – Mipim for short – has been held in Cannes. It’s a jaunt so lavish as to be almost comic – where big money developers invite town hall executives for secret discussions aboard private yachts, and whose regulars boast that they get through more champagne than all the liggers at the film festival. Suitably oiled-up, local officials open talks with multinational developers to sell council housing estates and other sites. All this networking is so lucrative for the builders that they even fly over council staff. Last year, Australia’s Lend Lease paid for Southwark’s boss, Peter John, to attend Cannes. This is the same Lend Lease to which Southwark sold the giant Heygate estate at a knock-down price: 1,100 council flats in inner London to be demolished and replaced with 2,500 units, of which only 79 will be for “social rent”."

I therefore asked whether this was the same conference that Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business ,skills and development) had attended last year and whether Sheffield attendees had any restrictions placed on them about selling off the city's family silver? Leigh Bramall and Julie Dore (Leader) both responded, Cllr Bramall indicating that it was the same conference, explaining that he and the Chief Executive, John Mothersole, roughed it in cheap bedsits whilst there and that they only attend these events to attract investment in the city for projects like the retail quarter. Cllr Dore added emphasis to the question of restriction making it very clear that any decisions on anything that came out of such conferences would be made in Sheffield by the council.

Question 1 audio below.

My second question was based on the report on Grounds Maintenance being approved at this meeting. The report itself recommends keeping ground maintenance in house but changing some of the structural management elements. The part of the report that got me interested was comment on the weighting of the decision making process. The key outcome weightings determine what are considered the most important aspects of the decision. In this case it fell out as follows.

Customer First 30%
Value for Money 30%
Council considerations 20%
Employee consideration 20%

I asked whether the same weightings were applied to all council contract decisions whether currently outsourced or not and how this would affect the consideration of contracts for which the council no longer had the 'capacity' to bring in-house.

Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) responded that weightings were used in all decisions of this nature but that they were different depending on the service under review. Services that were mainly internal processes would not have the same level of 'customer first' weighting. Service quality, however, was always factored in and they did not always choose the cheapest option. He passed no comment on the second part of my question. I guess the follow up will be to get some breakdown of the types of contracts and the corresponding weightings, to see if they are reasonable in the eyes of the public.

Question 2 audio below.

After further questions from members of the public the meeting moved on to consider a number of reports brought for approval. Item 9. was the first on the subject of the Grounds Maintenance arrangements for the council. In brief the report recommended the retention in-house of this service with some structural changes to how it was managed. The outcome was straightforward with the recommendations approved. The interesting bit was in comments on the report where Cllr Julie Dore asked whether the 'Sheffield Standard' which they were applying to the quality of the maintenance carried out could be extended to those private landlords (like housing associations) who were supposed to maintain their own grounds. Although the response was not a complete yes, it suggested that discussions on this were already under-way with those landlords.

The report at item 11. on Independent Living Solutions, was essentially about the various aspects of the city's independent living strategy for older and vulnerable people in conjunction with the Clinical Commissioning Group. There was one element of concern for me in this, or more correctly in the language of the presentation to cabinet, where the council officer referred to the Health and Care economy. The problem is this suggests an approach where the considerations are about money first and people second. This may not be the case but that is certainly the perception. In such a context words are important and should be chosen with care to reflect the truth of a statement.

The final part of the meeting went on to look at budget reports and in the first report we, the public, got our first glimpse of the chilling future for the city's budget in 2015/16. The indications are that the Government grant to Sheffield for next year will drop by £45 Million or 29% and the projected shortfall in the city's budget would consequently be some £38M. Another serving of austerity that will be very difficult to swallow.

The audio of the comment is here.

---

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com
To 'like' on Facebook click here
To follow on Twitter click here
To support Nigel's self-funding Indiegogo campaign click here

Sheffield City Council meeting agenda with links to reports.

---

1st October 2014 - Full Council Meeting, by Nigel Slack.

First off, an apology, due to a recording malfunction the quality of the audio I recorded at this meeting is not suitable for inclusion in the blog, so it's back to the written word only for this report. I will however try to keep it succinct and as soon as they are available I will include the official minutes at the end. So after the usual welcomes and housekeeping information, minutes of last meeting were accepted and the meeting moved on to public questions and petitions.

There were two petitions of particular interest. The first was a repeat of a petition on the Council's contracts with G4S and concerns over their human rights record. Cllr Ben Curran (Finance and Resources) admitted a mistake had been made the last time this came up and that the Council have 2 contracts with G4S, one for cash collection services and one for keyholder services, though they are both of low value. He informed the petitioners that the contracts were to be retendered by the early part of 2015 and the motion he has put forward later in the meeting should address their concerns about human rights.

The second was with respect to Scooter parking in the city, a mode of transport becoming ever more popular again. The petitioner, Jonathan Marsden, asked for improved levels of scooter parking areas and an exemption for scooters to be allowed to park on pavements. In response Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business, Skills and Development) commented that parking was the most problematic of issues with as many against as for any parking policy they as council might agree. He offered to continue to review the problems for scooters but that parking on pavement was unlikely to be a solution because of the problems this causes to the visually impaired.

Then came public questions. There were questions about the city pension fund and it's investment in fossil fuel funds and a number of questions about winter gritting in the Bradfield area of the city.

My questions were next and my first was concerning the fate of Smithy Wood ancient woodland to the North of the city. This woodland is subject to two decision processes within the council, a planning application is under consideration which would destroy the majority of the woodland in favour of a motorway service facility and an application to the licensing panel to have the woodland declared a village green thereby protecting it has been referred for a full inquiry to the council. On this second application, the chair of that committee commented that it was in the 'interests of natural justice' to hold an inquiry and in 'everyone's interest it be orgabised as quickly as possible'. I therefore asked if the council would ensure that the village green inquiry was held before the planning decision was made.

Cllr Leigh Bramall (Business,skills and development) responded to the effect that, planning decisions had to be taken in adherence to certain timescales to prevent applicants claiming 'non-determination'. However, even if the application is passed the 'village green' application still has to be processed before the planning permission becomes active.

My remaining questions, essentially two but probably really two and a half were about the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). I asked about the potential for this agreement to seriously curtail the ability of governemnt both national and local to pass legislation or by laws that 'might' affect a corporations profits. I commented on the involvement of the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) in the roadshow event for TTIP that took place that morning and asked whether, as a balance, the council would host an event that looked at the potential threats of the TTIP rather than the emphasis being placed on the positive aspects for business? I then attempted to comment on that mornings roadshow event and to ask whether any local public money had been used to support the event?

I say tried as I was interrupted by the Lord Mayor, Cllr Peter Rippon, telling me I was making a statement and to get to my question. This would seem to be an annual ritual, I was challenged in the same way last year by Cllr Vicky Priestley during her tenure as Lord Mayor. I soldiered on to ask my question though without some important contextual information. I also asked a supplementary question regarding a comment made by David Henig (Department of Business, Innovation and Skills) a civil servant "it's not Governments job to protect the people from corporations". I asked whether council had any comment on this?

Cllr Julie Dore (Leader) responded to all my questions in one go, fair enough, Answerring the last first she commented that "it is certainly the job of government to protect people from corporations" particularly she thought where they impact on peoples quality of life. She also supports some of the initiatives put forward by Ed Miliband around corporations that exploit there customers or the people they are supposed to be delivering services to, like the energy companies. Cllr Dore then commented on the global aspect of the economy and how private companie seemed to be taking over everything as seen lately with the NHS, however she also acknowledged that this put the 'left' in a delicate situation since despite their inclination to keep public services public, she has to accept that where we are is where we are. We have to accept that we need businesses to continue to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

She continued to comment on the role of the LEP and how city involvement enabled them to steer the LEP's investment in local business initiatives. On the issue of TTIP, she agrees with the national party's attempts to get an exemption for the NHS and other public services. On the roadshow, she commented that the role of the LEP in developing the local economy obliged them to advertise the roadshow but they did not put any money into it. So, in essence,as the event was invited to Sheffield by Nabarro Nathanson and not the LEP, the City would not hold an event to balance the roadshow.

To contact, email nrslack@aol.com